According to Multichannel, the Times’ editorial, published today, Monday, Dec. 6, 2010, "The New York Times editorial page argued Monday that the proposed Comcast/NBC Universal merger needs online access conditions and should be forced to provide "reasonably priced" standalone broadband.The newspaper talks ominously of the combined company being able to stamp out online innovation without ‘precise conditions on access to online content.’ "

The editorial goes on say: "The merged company must be made to provide content not only to rival cable systems but also to Internet-only rivals, on reasonable terms. And it should also commit, in a legally binding way, to offer reasonably priced broadband subscriptions independent of its TV bundles. "

Says Eggerton, "The Washington Post in an editorial in October also suggested there could be conditions on the deal, but advised to avoid network neutrality conditions, which would include nondiscriminatory access to content and applications if the FCC gets its way later this month. But the bottom line of the editorial was that the deal should go through with the companies watched carefully."

5 Comments

Here’s the true conditions under which the merger should go through: none. Never. It is an illegal merger and it will bring nothing but chaos in its wake for consumers. How could anyone(even a stockholder) think this is a good idea?

And who decides if the NYT’s products are reasonably priced? No one. The scarcest of all major media, newspapers, are unregulated. The least scarce of all major media, TV channels, are regulated. Go figure.

I should have clarified something in my post. I don’t like the Comcast deal either. I just don’t like the NYT even having an opinion on the matter. Now if this came from a reliable source like the Post or Mad magazine, that would be another matter.